Forum
Dottir takes November TAZD.
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 9:57 AM, Thursday December 1, 2011 EST
The TAZD and baseball-style standings are explained on my Wall. At least 35 regular games played in the month are require to qualify for the monthly TAZD. Shown are Games Behind, TAZD, and player name.
GB TAZD Player 06 12178 dottir 13 11141 Emre Oguz 03 10171 masticore 00 9719 Invola 39 9539 Shevar 03 8878 OneShot7 18 8842 jona_vicente 06 8419 savif 22 8352 [Ocean]Flushed 32 8336 Mazaman 02 8224 toms 10 8170 what_up23 47 8155 jfdis 08 8113 @ata 24 8064 Az_Balu 17 7666 kostur 20 7604 L3xy 48 7603 bcmatteagles 16 7600 22-Apr 11 7427 Lady Lite 07 7406 Vollhonk 66 7294 Scabbard 26 7159 kdiceplaya! 22 6840 chaiNblade 29 6829 IFIGENIUS 17 6518 FPP 24 6504 _smile_ 69 6474 Remiel 43 6441 Simmo3k 40 6411 Mercantile 12 6397 xjxaxnx 11 6328 @Toomyfriends 93 6315 franklyghost 14 6259 Bu7Ch3r 34 6214 fish28 18 6129 Free Flags 19 6043 hcdug 24 5928 kudoukun 18 5921 ovbogaert 14 5907 peter luftig 36 5658 @engr2002 49 5588 EddyB 22 5474 @MikeTamburini 31 5398 Brighty 30 5333 fearlessflyer 39 5281 Lord Death 92 5210 Loobee 35 5123 Gurgi 66 5087 barmat 21 5065 joero14 66 5054 Jily 40 5044 hatty 33 4952 longpube 32 4921 NikkeKnatterton 29 4841 scarp8 54 4794 stackshotbilly 34 4784 OviloN 66 4733 Silesia 100 4730 axlehammer 45 4623 mrb2097 47 4600 nexon 21 4582 Volvic 23 4484 beatol 33 4471 Fatman_x 25 4411 KDancer 41 4306 xXxJozefxXx 25 4289 Keeley 26 4019 euphrates7 87 4003 Rsquared 36 3917 Poker Style 48 3808 "MC" 34 3760 haloducks 41 3641 bivo 69 3261 orestis85 52 3201 greekboi 73 3179 cool g 33 2960 MNK10 57 2817 Trkz 58 2784 greenman 65 2759 These tards suck 76 2714 GreGGwar 70 2500 absolutgimlet 61 2463 Johnboat 44 2285 Kingofskillz 84 2218 DonnieScribbles 93 2208 GR3ENMAN 73 2028 CCSKAOT 94 1253 Kdot 92 1248 ji-jo |
|
montecarlo wrote
at 1:06 PM, Saturday December 3, 2011 EST but okay, I'll contribute. scrum, let's hypothesize that literally all other factors are held the same between those two distributions. how can the seemingly worse one possibly be judged as being more skillful?
|
|
superxchloe wrote
at 1:17 PM, Saturday December 3, 2011 EST lols monte.
Skrum: One person decides to give up their old strategy completely and try something entirely new for them, because they were dissatisfied with their old performance. It doesn't work out for them, and they end up getting a lot more sevenths than firsts. Perhaps this new strategy is something other players have already figured out doesn't work, like 2basing. In any case, it isn't something the majority of the population would trend towards. That's how one person changes a strategy without everyone else making the same move. |
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 1:28 PM, Saturday December 3, 2011 EST If the seemingly worse one is in fact more skillful, its owner will be promoted out of the zero point population. A possible scenario is a player who does not want to be a member (playing member tourneys is the best way to pile up points) but wants to qualify for 55 point or 100 point tourneys so all he wants is to pick up a win in the hour before a tourney starts and doesn't want to waste time on games that will place fourth or lower. Eventually he might finish in the money in a tournament and will qualify for bigger tournaments, etc and win a trophy. If this strategy works and is copied by others, the zero datum will morph away from the percentage profile supposedly considered worse.
|
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 1:35 PM, Saturday December 3, 2011 EST chloe: Didn't see your last post come in while I was doing mine, but I would say this: If one person thinks a strategy like doublebasing might work, it is likely that others will think the same thing. So the zero point pool might always have a contingent of players trying a particular thing.
Incidentally, now that we have 4 stack tables, doublebasing may be a more viable option. Because of the introduction of the 4 stack and 16 stack tables, the zero datum will likely have to be changed because some players will try concentrating on these new tables. I specialize on 4 stacks now because vflagging is less common. In tourneys, I do only the Friday Fives which have a table size of no larger than five, and, as a consequence, less vflagging. |
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 1:41 PM, Saturday December 3, 2011 EST If Ryan were to post a player's level in the stats *cough* we could have the TALL (Test Against Lowest Levels) that likely would be better than the TAZD.
|
|
|
superxchloe wrote
at 2:12 PM, Saturday December 3, 2011 EST "If one person thinks a strategy like doublebasing might work, it is likely that others will think the same thing. So the zero point pool might always have a contingent of players trying a particular thing."
So what you're saying is that mostly the zero datum pool doesn't change as a whole, given no change in the game structure itself. Thus one person changing his or her personal strategy will change his/her TAZD but will not affect the zero datum itself. And we're back to the original argument that Vermont posed: "Take a player that plays the same number of games in two different months. Here's their stats: * Scenario 4 * Month 1: 10 10 10 13 16 17 19 Month 2: 5 10 10 13 16 17 24 Any rational, sane, individual would say that month 1 was a better month for that player. 2-6 was the same, but in month one they got more firsts and less sevenths. Yet your TAZD (using same zero datum as other scenarios for consistency) would give the player a HIGHER score on the month they did WORSE. Same player, same number of games, worse record, better TAZD." |
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 3:22 PM, Saturday December 3, 2011 EST Same player with new strategy, lots of players with new strategy, good strategy, change of datum, not good strategy change of datum.
|
|
jurgen wrote
at 3:45 PM, Saturday December 3, 2011 EST skrumgear: OK Chloe, I will glady admit your scenario 4 shows that TAZD is not a good measure for KDice skill
|
|
|
jurgen wrote
at 3:46 PM, Saturday December 3, 2011 EST ^^ got that from google's statistical mumbo jumbo translate
|
|
|
superxchloe wrote
at 3:59 PM, Saturday December 3, 2011 EST Alright. I'm done being polite.
Skrum, you are a hardheaded, pretentious, and prideful ass who not only does not listen to anything anyone else has to say but also fails to respond with any kind of logic. You are a FOOL who cannot see the flaws in his system even when they have been pointed out ad nauseum by multiple people through both theoretical and actual examples. You are unwilling to explain anything to the general public in terms they'll understand. You are unwilling to disclose your child proofing method- the fact that you even need one speaks to the weakness of the TAZD. Until you decide to have the teensiest crack in that extremely closed mind of yours, there is no point in arguing with you. In contrast: I listened to people's complaints and improved on the TAZD because you were unwilling to do so. I still listen to suggestions, and ask people what they think should occur. Obviously not everyone is a statistician, but that doesn't mean the general public is completely incompetent. Most of the suggestions are logical ones- "Don't you think this scoring system gives too much advantage to people who spend all their time on the game" "Why does having more than expected sevenths and less than expected firsts improve your score" "Shouldn't you normalise percentage profiles so everyone is on even footing to start with"- and are fairly easy to implement. I publish EVERYTHING. I answer people's questions instead of referring them to a technobabble filled wallpost that is almost three years old. |
